Comments

Isn't it a bit presumptuous of towleroad to be referring to Sandusky as a child rapist? The rush to judge Sandusky - who hasn't even had a trial yet - is symptomatic of a lazy and prejudicial mindset.

Gay people, of all people, should not be rushing to judge someobody without even a trial having been conducted. It reeks of bullying and witch hunt-like behavior. I say let the legal process run its course and then make a judgement.

Jason, he was caught by multiple people molesting young boys and they reported it (grand, they didn't notify the police, but that's their monkey now). I honestly don't know how much more evidence you really need. I guess we should just wait until he is actually raping a boy to judge him, right? But then you'd still be in his defense - "Well, we don't have photos, guys. So, let's not start judging him without all the facts." Why are you defending this monster?

Posted by: Rob | Nov 16, 2011 9:00:40 AM

Ughh. Grand = granted.

Posted by: Rob | Nov 16, 2011 9:01:12 AM

"and then make a judgement"

In the United States, that word is spelled "judgment." No "e." In Commonwealth countries, yes "e."

Posted by: MT | Nov 16, 2011 9:35:12 AM

I sort of agree with JASON—there should be an "accused" in there somewhere. But you need to be careful also not get confused between defending someone for being gay and condemning someone for being a pedophile—when they happen to be the same person.

Posted by: brian | Nov 16, 2011 9:42:00 AM

No, he has not been sent to a trial as of yet and found guilty, however, there was grand jury testimony which then caused him to be arrested. The testimony is now a finding of fact which is considered evidence. Based upon the sheer amount of this evidence, any reasonable person, straight or gay, could call this "person" a child rapist. In this particular case, this apparent "rush to judgement" took ten years. I have read the transcripts. This guys actions are textbook tactics of a predator.

Posted by: Peejay | Nov 16, 2011 9:44:46 AM

"The testimony is now a finding of fact which is considered evidence."

That is demonstrably untrue.

There's an old legal adage that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if presented with sufficient information.

Once someone is indicted, he has a constitutional right to a jury trial. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crimes with which he was charged. Not every person or victim who testified before the grand jury need be a prosecution witness, but every witness that the prosecution calls is subject to cross examination -- another constitutional right enjoyed by the defendant. And the jury will evaluate all the witnesses' credibility, along with any physical evidence (including, possibly, an audio tape of Sandusky apologizing to the mother of a boy).

Posted by: MT | Nov 16, 2011 9:53:08 AM

I hate it when people say things like "as gay people we should not judge yadda yadda yadda." No. Just because we're unfairly judged for being gay, which hurts no one, doesn't mean we shouldn't judge people. Pedophiles, rapists, and people who hurts others should be judged just as harshly by us as they are by straight people. Moral judgments are absolutely necessary, and just because they may be wrongly used against us doesn't mean we should use them against people who are really immoral.

Posted by: Mark | Nov 16, 2011 10:55:36 AM

@MT,

The grammar police and spellcheckers are almost as obnoxious as bigoted trolls. They don't add anything enlightening to the discussion except portray themselves as intellectually superior (pretentiously). This is the Internet, not a classroom. I'm here to read comments, not proofread.

Nevertheless, everyone has the right to be considered until proven guilty. That doesn't mean we're siding with Sandusky either. We're the type who reserve judg(e)ment and try to remain objective observers.

Posted by: Adrian | Nov 16, 2011 11:05:28 AM

*considered innocent

Posted by: Adrian | Nov 16, 2011 11:06:30 AM

@Jason Not only that, but some of these people are apparently blind to the undercurrent of homophobia that is driving the hysteria surrounding this case. Just about every high-profile molestation case that turns into a national "event" involves boys rather than girls......and that is not an accident. It is part of an attempt to reinforce the idea that gay men cannot be trusted around children, one of the oldest arrows in the quiver of homophobes and the Religious Right.

We should be assailing this double standard, at the same time that we disavow pedophilia of any sort.

@Mark You miss the point. The point is that this guy is being convicted and hanged by the public before he has even been tried. You want an analogy? An analogy would be a straight guy accused of murdering a gay guy claiming that he did it out of self-defense, because the gay guy hit on him.....and getting the public's sympathy because of that, even if it was not true. That is the kind of "judgment' being referred to.

Posted by: Rick | Nov 16, 2011 11:10:45 AM

1. "accused" and "alleged" are appropriate. I love you, towleroad, but you're wrong on that headline. GJ finding of fact is not "evidence", and there hasn't been a trial. The redhead hottie who is the pivotal witness from 2002 is already changing his GJ story in emails he's exchanging with friends.

2. To millions of people, there is no wall of separation between "gay" and "child molestor". If you want to jump in this fray with both feet, go ahead, but for myself, I would heed Satan's advice and "get out of the way on this one".

3. Accusations of molestation bring out the lizard brain in people who (largely) do not see the separation in #2. That's reality. Right now, they're turning up the heat to get more of what they want, which bends away from justice. If you want to toss away the system of trial by jury when it's sexcrime time - well, I'd say "Be my guest", except that one day, that's gonna turn around and bite you in places you didn't know you had.

Posted by: Name2 | Nov 16, 2011 11:14:23 AM

How many more coverups are going on at major colleges?

Posted by: anon | Nov 16, 2011 11:14:28 AM

"The redhead hottie who is the pivotal witness from 2002 is already changing his GJ story in emails he's exchanging with friends."

And now he is claiming that he told the Penn State police about the incident......which means that you would have to add them to the list of conspirators, as well, along with Joe Pa, the Athletics Director, a couple of Vice-Presidents, and the President, himself.

I guess it boils down to what he actually told them and what his motivation was--but there is no way that dozens of people in authority positions knew about this and all conspired to cover it up.

Posted by: Rick | Nov 16, 2011 11:44:02 AM

Jason, et al--When you defend this creep, you make it look like pedophilia is AOK with the gays. Not cool. He is entitled to a fair trial and the jury is instructed to convict him only if he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We, however, are not sitting in the jury box. And he looks guilty as hell from where I sit.

In what universe is it acceptable for an old geezer to shower with prepubescent boys and engage in 'horseplay'????

Posted by: StillmarriedinCA | Nov 16, 2011 11:49:04 AM

I think you're wrong Rick. I think that is exactly what happened. College football is like a religion in PA and Joe Paterno is the Pope.

It is almost exactly what the Catholic church did and that involved a lot more than 'dozens of people'.

Posted by: Laura | Nov 16, 2011 11:52:35 AM

did anybody else notice that the videoclip was followed by a commercial for mormon.org?

Posted by: bryce | Nov 16, 2011 12:28:06 PM

@RICK: "[Penn State police]....which means that you would have to add them to the list of conspirators, as well,"

Um, yeah, I do. The Greek tragedy at the center of all this is the chorus from the worldwide Peanut Gallery wondering why he didn't "go to the authorities" (specifically the police). And right there in the Beloved Grand Jury report is "evidence" that local authority - both within and without the borders of the college - is useless in the shadow of Penn State and its Beloved Coach.

The whole thing is an ugly, ugly mess, and yes, the reason Penn State as a whole has egg on its face (at least I think that's egg) is the abuse-of-power issue.

Posted by: Name2 | Nov 16, 2011 12:52:18 PM

Just an addendum here - the ONLY reason this got into the hands of statewide authorities, and the slow wheels of justice started to turn is because someone OUTSIDE the chain of Penn State command - an assistant principal at a local high school who apparently isn't Blinded By Football - took action. Since the timeline in the GJ FoF mysteriously seems to be going BACKWARD, that might not be obvious on first read.

But yeah - the institution was paralyzed with corruption, down to the janitorial staff and the University's servants in local law enforcement.

Posted by: Name2 | Nov 16, 2011 1:15:52 PM

Adrian, thank you for proofreading your anti-proofreading screed. I do have an issue with this sentence as well.

Aside from portray requiring an infinitive (i.e. except "to" portray themselves), the sentence suggests that the opposite meaning of what I believe you intend. This sentence would capture your sentiment. "Rather than adding anything enlightening to the discussion, they instead choose to portray themselves as intellectually superior." The addition of pretentiously is superfluous as it can be inferred by the context.

Posted by: mrchips | Nov 16, 2011 1:50:50 PM

I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of the witch hunt type situations like that infamous day care case. But seriously Sandusky doesn't sound too convincing- what sort of man "horseplays" with ten year old boys ?

Posted by: jaragon | Nov 16, 2011 5:50:10 PM

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I haven't really played any organized sports at any point in my life... but is it standard or "normal" for a coach to shower (which I assume implies nudity) with the young athletes on his team? At 2:35 Sandusky says "We were showering and horsing around."

Posted by: Harrison | Nov 16, 2011 6:07:35 PM

@Harrison

Yes, it is normal, even common, for a coach to shower with his athletes after a game or practice. Although I haven't played organized sports in an academic setting, this has been the case in nearly every adult film I've done.